[arin-ppml] (no subject)

Steve Bertrand steve at ibctech.ca
Fri Jan 29 00:09:22 EST 2010

George Bonser wrote:
>>> One might also consider the merits of this "distributed management"
>>> approach to maintaining whois as a useful mechanism for preserving
>> the
>>> openness and transparency of ARIN policy outcomes. The more that
> such
>>> (by current convention, "public") contact information remains
>> publicly
>>> accessible, the less ARIN members have to rely on ARIN staff to
>> produce
>>> summary answers to sensitive policy questions using
>>> non-sharable/non-disclosable member data. In a world where virtually
>>> every important institution is at the center of a permanent debate
>>> between defenders of "x is generally good" and partisans of "x is
>>> hopelessly corrupt"  -- with the vast majority of stakeholders
> likely
>> to
>>> be in the "trust but verify" center -- seems like it would be
> prudent
>> to
>>> weigh the costs and benefits very carefully before eliminating the
>>> public data resources that make such independent
>> analysis/verification
>>> efforts possible.
>> ... ^ what he said.
> More openness is better.  If a provider knowingly provides incorrect
> info, they should be at risk of losing the IP space.  The addresses do
> not belong to them, they are entrusted with them by the community.

Yes. IIRC, the NRPM refers to the term 'license'.

> I would possibly support a proposal that would eliminate SWIP/RWHOIS
> requirements for networks that are announced ONLY from the provider's
> network.  

I'm not in favour of this. It would cause undue overhead
administratively, and would force someone (possibly ARIN) to validate
this technically.

If it's ge /29, it's SWIP'ed. Period.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list